Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Narrating Hit Points - no actual "damage"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7354031" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Rather than argue about this my advice to you is to try it. Put your ideas into practice, observe the results for about 10 or 20 years, and then get back to me.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a confusing jumble of sentences. At the beginning of the idea you are focusing on whether or not a monster which is winning a fight would be motivated to pursue a fleeing PC. But just a few sentences later you are offering a conclusion that monsters would retreat quite early. You offer nothing to support the conclusion and at the same time offer nothing to support the thesis. </p><p></p><p>In fact, if a monster is winning and it had a motivation to fight in the first place then the monster will almost certainly pursue if only to deter the intruders from being a further threat. The only time a monster that is winning logically isn't going to pursue is when it can't or when its motivation was entirely to defend it's lair. For example, if the monster was motivated by hunger, well the food is getting away. If the monster is undead, it's probably motivated by some sort of unnatural hatred of life. If the monster was motivated by greed, well the treasure is getting away And so forth. As a practical matter, the reason I suggest that a PC party that flees is simply giving a monster free hits is because that's how it works in play if you pursue a 'realistic' or 'naturalistic' approach. It has nothing at all to do with assuming all monsters are part of an organized military. </p><p></p><p>Sure, if the PC's plan for retreat very well, maybe they can do it. But planning for retreat is a very advanced skill and not everyone who is playing D&D is or even wants to be a tactical mastermind because that isn't why they RP.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, the crux of the problem is that even if you do consider casual realism or a naturalistic feel, retreat still isn't a very viable option generally (from a casual realistic perspective) and it's a particularly problematic option under the D&D rules specifically. Retreat isn't easy. The US Marines for example don't even teach it because successfully disengaging is harder and more dangerous than attacking, which is the same lesson PC's will learn if they try both tactics. Not only is retreat difficult, but the short durations of D&D combats and the fact that armored humans and dwarfs and so forth are probably the slowest things in D&D means that in D&D in particular the rules are stacked against you.</p><p></p><p>Monsters are generally much more capable of retreating than the PC's are, in that monsters often have movement modes (flying, swimming, burrowing, ethereal, etc.) the PC's don't and are typically faster than the PC's and yet even if you as a DM try to simulate monsters retreating it rarely actually works or is any sort of a rational decision for the monster or a satisfying way to run the combat. One reason for that is PC's tend to dominate ranged combat, and monsters are generally unable to get out of range of the PC's for 2-3 rounds - which is as long as a D&D combat usually runs anyway. In other words, retreating a monster except in situations where you've stacked the deck in the monster's favor with some sort of gimmick and planned for the retreat, rarely works and feels like to everyone involved the monster just giving up and trying to lose. And once again, just as to pull off a retreat successfully requires tactical mastery by the PCs, retreating an NPC successfully requires tactical mastery by the DM that not all DMs have.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's what I prefer to do as well, but I'm just trying to explain that even if you do think about whether monsters would retreat, parlay, surrender, cower or what not it turns out that that advice is not particularly applicable. So much advice I see written about how to play an RPG is based on theory crafting rather than, "This worked for me for years." There are lots of things I've tried over the years to make the game "more realistic" that just doesn't work in the long run. Naturalistic encounters tend to result in a lot of non-encounter encounters that become ho hum after the third or fourth time. There is only so long and so much you can do to make, "You see a X. It's not interested in eating you." interesting. There is only so much value retreating monsters that fail their morale can add, especially if the monster then doesn't turn into some other sort of encounter. Turning combats into RP opportunities is great. Turning combats into chases is great. Turning combats into boring combats is not great.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7354031, member: 4937"] Rather than argue about this my advice to you is to try it. Put your ideas into practice, observe the results for about 10 or 20 years, and then get back to me. This is a confusing jumble of sentences. At the beginning of the idea you are focusing on whether or not a monster which is winning a fight would be motivated to pursue a fleeing PC. But just a few sentences later you are offering a conclusion that monsters would retreat quite early. You offer nothing to support the conclusion and at the same time offer nothing to support the thesis. In fact, if a monster is winning and it had a motivation to fight in the first place then the monster will almost certainly pursue if only to deter the intruders from being a further threat. The only time a monster that is winning logically isn't going to pursue is when it can't or when its motivation was entirely to defend it's lair. For example, if the monster was motivated by hunger, well the food is getting away. If the monster is undead, it's probably motivated by some sort of unnatural hatred of life. If the monster was motivated by greed, well the treasure is getting away And so forth. As a practical matter, the reason I suggest that a PC party that flees is simply giving a monster free hits is because that's how it works in play if you pursue a 'realistic' or 'naturalistic' approach. It has nothing at all to do with assuming all monsters are part of an organized military. Sure, if the PC's plan for retreat very well, maybe they can do it. But planning for retreat is a very advanced skill and not everyone who is playing D&D is or even wants to be a tactical mastermind because that isn't why they RP. No, the crux of the problem is that even if you do consider casual realism or a naturalistic feel, retreat still isn't a very viable option generally (from a casual realistic perspective) and it's a particularly problematic option under the D&D rules specifically. Retreat isn't easy. The US Marines for example don't even teach it because successfully disengaging is harder and more dangerous than attacking, which is the same lesson PC's will learn if they try both tactics. Not only is retreat difficult, but the short durations of D&D combats and the fact that armored humans and dwarfs and so forth are probably the slowest things in D&D means that in D&D in particular the rules are stacked against you. Monsters are generally much more capable of retreating than the PC's are, in that monsters often have movement modes (flying, swimming, burrowing, ethereal, etc.) the PC's don't and are typically faster than the PC's and yet even if you as a DM try to simulate monsters retreating it rarely actually works or is any sort of a rational decision for the monster or a satisfying way to run the combat. One reason for that is PC's tend to dominate ranged combat, and monsters are generally unable to get out of range of the PC's for 2-3 rounds - which is as long as a D&D combat usually runs anyway. In other words, retreating a monster except in situations where you've stacked the deck in the monster's favor with some sort of gimmick and planned for the retreat, rarely works and feels like to everyone involved the monster just giving up and trying to lose. And once again, just as to pull off a retreat successfully requires tactical mastery by the PCs, retreating an NPC successfully requires tactical mastery by the DM that not all DMs have. That's what I prefer to do as well, but I'm just trying to explain that even if you do think about whether monsters would retreat, parlay, surrender, cower or what not it turns out that that advice is not particularly applicable. So much advice I see written about how to play an RPG is based on theory crafting rather than, "This worked for me for years." There are lots of things I've tried over the years to make the game "more realistic" that just doesn't work in the long run. Naturalistic encounters tend to result in a lot of non-encounter encounters that become ho hum after the third or fourth time. There is only so long and so much you can do to make, "You see a X. It's not interested in eating you." interesting. There is only so much value retreating monsters that fail their morale can add, especially if the monster then doesn't turn into some other sort of encounter. Turning combats into RP opportunities is great. Turning combats into chases is great. Turning combats into boring combats is not great. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Narrating Hit Points - no actual "damage"
Top